I hear you, all of those configurations are possible. I have almost lost interest in OB and dipoles, taken things as far as I want to at this time. Horns are the new focus until I get distracted again.

Great. I won't hold my breath given that you're working on other things, but good to know they may appear at some point.

I know that feeling well. I like OB, but box speakers and horns will always be my main interest. They're more fun to work with (at least, I think so) with all the variables involved.

Quote:

I am not sure where the worksheets will end up or at what price, there are more and more people making money without paying for licenses.

Well, you know I and a lot of people here / on your forum will be happy to pay even if you crank the price up. More people not paying though? That @;$$#$ me off. Fire me a PM if there's anything I can do to help out.

I would be delighted to contact people not in compliance, and help nudge them into proper licensing.

I am really looking forward to your next-gen BLH work, and if there's a chance others will ruin it, I want to volunteer right now and help in any way I can.

Incidentally, you could do what AJ Horn does -- make all calculations conditional on the user entering a certain unique value. In AJ Horn's case, it generates a string, then the user sends the string to AJ Horn, and gets back another string. Only when that second string is entered will the sheet function.

translation is made by goo.. not by myself, that why i gave the link about what.
chrisb:
at :about what you can read!!
"Membran movement
interlacing:

My haptic verifications
show a rather linear
membrane movement,
similar to a normal
distribution curve.
Which means a reduction
of "pressure changes",
and hence less mechanical
membrane stress and
maximized sound and SPL.

Test trap unnecessary for me, as well as the area reserved by 250Hz certainly be optimized may, at Listening to music these Bodies but not conspicuous, so that I without blocking or acceptor circuit prefer.
translated "right":
LCR filter unnecessary for me, as well as the area by 250Hz certainly can be optimized at Listening to music these "peaks" are not conspicuous, so that I listen without LCRīs.

i gave all information, where is your real measurement ?

sorry, my Kornet is sold to the first listener, jan.2008
i want only show, by my experience that ~1mm stroke is a must for small "horn"
and we see now that is a fact.

"We're given to assume that these are actual measurements, but the few times I've visited the site, I've had trouble navigating, and certainly haven't deciphered details of test conditions."
are you blind? every side right at top are the links!

Ya know buddy, it's hard to give you the benefit of the doubt when your translated "tone of voice" comes across as arrogantly as your last sentence, but I'll try.
(yes, I've been practicing my own brand of passive aggression for so long, it's second nature)

While you've clearly taken time to compile lots of data as presented in the graphics, your website is not the most easily navigable around. Some interesting reading, a lot of with which many DIYers would agree.

My clearly not well parsed question was "what are control conditions of these measurements?" All that I can tell from the text is that you use a microphone - that's fine, but are there any other methods involved in gathering data for "haptic verifications"? If you're asking others to present a comparable data set of their own designs, there are details of your test conditions it would be helpful to know. Those would include the types of all measuring devices and interpreting software, amount of smoothing involved in Frequency response graphs, and I think importantly in the case of any rear loaded horn, the size of room and number and proximity to boundaries.

Congratulations on the sale(s), but what is the relevance of "sorry, my Kornet is sold to the first listener" to my queries?

oh chrisp,
i made measurement real, you can see distance, angle, watt, imp, what do you want?
i waiting for your measurements of the FHmk3 not simus.
my info is better as a few world sellers and i am a hobby man!!
let us see the real measurement, please!
I didnīt made my measurements, my carpenter made it and i must pay for it!!
so where is the problem?
"relevance of "sorry"- i can not compair it to FHmk3.

Ah, so you admit that comparisons between FH3 and your box are essentially irrelevant Horst, as the two cabinets have completely different design priorities. Your box clearly is not designed to be as physically simple as possible and possess the absolute minimum number of parts (as FH3 was), and it even employs two (rather than a single) drive units. By analogy, that makes about as much sense as comparing a BMW to a Morgan.

So, Horst, given that it must be obvious to the average iguana that your box and FH3 are designed for different things, could you please tell us what you are trying to prove here? At the moment, it appears to be the case that you are deliberately attacking the cabinet and all those behind it / who build it simply because it does not happen to adhere to your own design priorities. Please understand something. If we had wished to design a relatively complicated box with two drive units, we would have designed a relatively complicated box with two drive units. But we didn't. We wished to make a box with one drive unit that was physically as simple as possible, yet still provide reasonable performance. I refer you to the feedback on this forum on the last point.

Continuing from the MathCAD modelled response of FH3 with the FE126En I posted earlier, here is a series of similar plots for a variety of different drive units.

A few points.
-Conditions are identical to the aforementioned FE126En graphs.
-I have not optimised the cabinet damping to the specific drivers in these models (primarily because I can think of other ways to spend my Friday evening )
-The in-room response will of course vary depending on exactly where you position the cabinet. Conditions I consistently used are repeated on each set of graphs.